Do you have general thoughts about the future of the site?
I see a lot of potential here. I'm a software engineer, but I'm dealing with a lot of topics at work that touch on topics here - algorithms and data structures (especially performance), cryptography, stenography, security, as well as concurrent and distributed systems (but these are more from an applied standing rather than the theoretical that is more appropriate here). Even taking a look back at previous jobs, having a Stack Exchange to ask questions and provide answers about computer science topics I've encountered would have been helpful a long time ago.
If anything is going to be a problem, it's going to be scaring away people who aren't experts in the field. Honestly, I'm not that thrilled with the current state of TCS. It's following MathOverflow too closely and is catering to the experts. What makes Stack Overflow (and even Mathematics and Statistical Analysis) so great is that people of various levels of knowledge and experience are using the exact same site. The problem with MathOverflow (and TCS is going down this road) is that it focuses on the experts and the researchers. TCS does have some college students using it, but many are in a program or that deals exclusively with theoretical CS, and these people appear to be doing OK. However, people like me who have a more practical background, but are interested in the theoretical side of things without a formal education, aren't made to feel as welcome (or at least, that's the impression I get).
I think part of the problem is that there is no hands on leadership. This Stack Exchange was proposed by Anand Kulkarni (meta profile, site profile). Yet this user has less than 200 reputation, has only posted 3 things (1 question, 2 answers) on the main site, and has only posted 2 answers on the meta. So right from Day 1, the person who came up with this idea hasn't been involved in the site. Stack Exchange doesn't give you the tools you need to lay the framework for a site until it goes into Private Beta, and by then, it's too late for the person who came up with this idea to propose a framework of how the system works in his/her mind, since other people have already started to use the site.
Given the focus on experts/experienced people and lack of hands on leadership (although some people are emerging as leaders, so this might turn around with the addition of moderators), I wouldn't be surprised if this Stack Exchange doesn't make it. And I think that it would be a shame if it didn't.
Are you pleased with the quality and interest of the questions and answers you've seen on the main site?
I've asked one question, and I'm quite pleased with the answer I got. The way I worded my question, I didn't expect someone to take the time to write up such a detailed answer. But they did, and I'm better off because of it.
How well do you think we are doing at resolving issues and conflicts that arise?
I think this is a problem with the Stack Exchange system. The fact that there is no place for meta discussions until the site goes into private beta is a bad thing. So right now, we (and I think several Stack Exchanges have had this problem) have lots of people who read the description of the site, but then got there and were disappointed because the description didn't capture what was really happening. Because of this, everyone comes to Meta after there are already questions and answers posted on the site, time is passing, more questions/answers are being posted, and there's no agreed upon method to do things.
I think it will get better once there are more high reputation users and moderators on the main site, but I do think that this is something that the Stack Exchange team needs to address.